Dr. E. Forrest Chapman

[Jack Nessan]

Forgive me, but I've been at this too long to take you guys and your never-ending snipe hunt seriously. It never ceases to amaze me that despite 62 years of futility, you're still pursuing the white whale.

If only the early missed shot theory that was not so full of holes. Exactly how does a theory work again, that lacks having any eyewitnesses in an area full of eyewitnesses standing shoulder to shoulder. It is not like you have any answers.

[Lance Payette]

Forgive me, but I've been at this too long to take you guys and your never-ending snipe hunt seriously. It never ceases to amaze me that despite 62 years of futility, you're still pursuing the white whale.

This is why Dan O'Meara aptly called you a tinfoil hat LNer.

The condition of CE 543 is a straightforward factual issue that Charles, whom I don't believe is a CTer, raised. It is neither an LN or CT issue per se, just a factual issue.

Jack Nessan is not a CTer. He believes Oswald fired two shots, which is entirely consistent with Oswald being the sole gunman.

I am not a CTer. I am simply open to where the evidence may lead. CE 543 is simply a piece of evidence.

Dr. Chapman was a qualified forensic pathologist and possibly a ballistics expert. His opinion is worth exploring.

So who are these "you guys" strawmen you are addressing? On what basis other than your tinfoil hat LN opinion does the discussion of CE 543 qualify as a snipe hunt?

The fact that you literally CANNOT STAND any discussion that varies from your opinion, including even Jack's two-shot LN scenario, and that you CANNOT REFRAIN from snide and irrelevant comments even on threads in which you have no interest, is pretty much the mark of a tinfoil-hat crank.

[Charles Collins]

CE 543  FBI  FRAZIER

The article about Dr Chapman came from this magazine. I believe this is the predecessor of The New American Magazine

They Killed the President, by Alan Stang (American Opinion, February 1976).pdf (archive.org)

------------------------

Military primers in military rounds are different in makeup than the civilian market primers. Much harder and designed different. Comparing the row of pictures to CE 543 is really an apples to oranges scenario. At the time we did not have any Western Cartridge cartridges and only used what was available to make the point. The reason for the second row or additional row of pictures was to show individual carcano rifles were not the same as far as how hard the firing pin struck the shell casing primer. The second row is far less dented in. 

The best we could do was to use two Terni 1940 M38 rifles but the way these rifles were prepared for the American market was to just put them together and make sure they fired the round and ejected it.

Personally, I can’t believe the FBI missed so much about these shells. Not only did they miss the dished in primer but the Chamber Mark on just 5 of the 6 shells. They had six shells in their possession and noted the chamber mark in the analysis of some of them but not all. It would have been easy to look and see what was in the chamber causing the indentation and maybe did look but did not note it other than to state it about some of them in the analysis. I have wondered if they realized to declare that only two of the shells showed to have been fired would that information have fueled a conspiracy belief with Merriman Smith’s/ Walter Cronkite’s three shot News Bulletin. 

A conspiracy is exactly how Dr Chapman and Josiah Thompson viewed the information.

Thanks Jack, I don’t remember seeing a second row of images in the Kindle version of the book that I purchased recently. I have been researching further trying to understand more about the action of the Carcano rifle. Below please find a Q&A that I think might be pertinent.


For what it is worth:

Question to Google AI:

if the bolt handle of a Carcano model 91-38 rifle is slightly not completely down in the closed position can the trigger still be pulled and the rifle fire and if so, can this cause a variation in the depth of the firing pin depression in the primer of the cartridge?


Google AI answer:

Yes, a Carcano Model 91/38 can be fired with the bolt handle slightly unlatched. Because of the design of the cocking cams, pulling the trigger releases the firing pin even if the bolt is not fully locked down.

The Mechanics:

Trigger Pull and Firing:  Most bolt-action rifles are designed with an "out of battery" safety that disconnects the sear or physically blocks the firing pin if the bolt is not fully closed. However, the historic Carcano M91 design lacks this modern feature. When the bolt handle is slightly raised:The trigger can still be pulled, releasing the cocking piece and firing pin. As the firing pin drives forward, its energy is often spent camming the bolt handle downward into the locked position before the pin hits the primer. Alternatively, if the bolt is held firmly in place so it cannot self-close, the firing pin will release and strike the primer while the bolt remains partially out of battery.

Effect on Firing Pin Depth (Primer Indentation):

If the bolt fails to fully lock down, it fundamentally alters the headspacing of the firearm. When the trigger is pulled:Inconsistent Depth: You will likely notice a variation in the depth of the firing pin depression. If the firing pin's forward energy is robbed by the effort of forcing the bolt to cam into battery, the indent will often be shallow, light, or off-center.

Safety Risks: Firing a rifle "out of battery" (when the bolt lugs are not fully seated and locked into the receiver) is extremely dangerous. It exposes the unsupported or partially supported cartridge case to high pressures, which can cause ruptured brass, blown primers, and escaping gas that could damage the firearm or injure the shooter.

For more context on how these components function, you can view the Carcano Bolt Disassembly and Reassembly guide.

[Lance Payette]

FWIW, the firing pin impression issue was addressed by Donald Champagne at page 455 of the HSCA firearms panel's testimony.

https://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/pdf/HSCA_Vol1_0908_6_Firearms.pdf

This is HSCA Figure 21A, "Photomicrograph showing the correspondence between the individual identifying characteristics on the CE 543 cartridge case (L) and on panel Kennedy T-1 (R), produced by the firing pin of the CE 139 rifle." Hmm ... does the indentation on CE 543 (L portion) not look somewhat different, along the lines of what Chapman was talking about?

[John Corbett]

If only the early missed shot theory that was not so full of holes. Exactly how does a theory work again, that lacks having any eyewitnesses in an area full of eyewitnesses standing shoulder to shoulder. It is not like you have any answers.

Do you think eyewitnesses would have seen a missed shot?

[Charles Collins]

FWIW, the firing pin impression issue was addressed by Donald Champagne at page 455 of the HSCA firearms panel's testimony.

https://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/pdf/HSCA_Vol1_0908_6_Firearms.pdf

This is HSCA Figure 21A, "Photomicrograph showing the correspondence between the individual identifying characteristics on the CE 543 cartridge case (L) and on panel Kennedy T-1 (R), produced by the firing pin of the CE 139 rifle." Hmm ... does the indentation on CE 543 (L portion) not look somewhat different, along the lines of what Chapman was talking about?

Thanks Lance, based on the testimony, it seems that the comparison microscope manipulates the images via prisms, etc in order to line up similarities on both sides. I wouldn’t expect that comparing the remainders of the two sides would be apples to apples due to angles, lighting, etc.

One thing about the testimonies that I have read so far that stands out to me is the firearms expert who explained exactly what he was doing when the dent in the test cartridge happened. I have seen a lot of different guesses over the years as to how it might could have happened. Now I have finally seen sworn testimony as to how that type of dent on a cartridge actually did happen. I plan to take a closer look at the ejector mechanism on the Carcano to see if I can tell why this might happen.

[Jack Nessan]

Thanks Jack, I don’t remember seeing a second row of images in the Kindle version of the book that I purchased recently. I have been researching further trying to understand more about the action of the Carcano rifle. Below please find a Q&A that I think might be pertinent.


For what it is worth:

Question to Google AI:

if the bolt handle of a Carcano model 91-38 rifle is slightly not completely down in the closed position can the trigger still be pulled and the rifle fire and if so, can this cause a variation in the depth of the firing pin depression in the primer of the cartridge?


Google AI answer:

Yes, a Carcano Model 91/38 can be fired with the bolt handle slightly unlatched. Because of the design of the cocking cams, pulling the trigger releases the firing pin even if the bolt is not fully locked down.

The Mechanics:

Trigger Pull and Firing:  Most bolt-action rifles are designed with an "out of battery" safety that disconnects the sear or physically blocks the firing pin if the bolt is not fully closed. However, the historic Carcano M91 design lacks this modern feature. When the bolt handle is slightly raised:The trigger can still be pulled, releasing the cocking piece and firing pin. As the firing pin drives forward, its energy is often spent camming the bolt handle downward into the locked position before the pin hits the primer. Alternatively, if the bolt is held firmly in place so it cannot self-close, the firing pin will release and strike the primer while the bolt remains partially out of battery.

Effect on Firing Pin Depth (Primer Indentation):

If the bolt fails to fully lock down, it fundamentally alters the headspacing of the firearm. When the trigger is pulled:Inconsistent Depth: You will likely notice a variation in the depth of the firing pin depression. If the firing pin's forward energy is robbed by the effort of forcing the bolt to cam into battery, the indent will often be shallow, light, or off-center.

Safety Risks: Firing a rifle "out of battery" (when the bolt lugs are not fully seated and locked into the receiver) is extremely dangerous. It exposes the unsupported or partially supported cartridge case to high pressures, which can cause ruptured brass, blown primers, and escaping gas that could damage the firearm or injure the shooter.

For more context on how these components function, you can view the Carcano Bolt Disassembly and Reassembly guide.

I guess it depends on which AI is being used. This is COPILOT.

JN “can a M38 carcano rifle be discharged without the bolt fully closed”

Short answer: No. An M38 Carcano cannot discharge unless the bolt is fully closed and locked. This is a hard mechanical rule of the Carcano action — not something that varies by model.

🔧 Why the M38 cannot fire out of battery

The M38 uses the same fundamental Carcano turn‑bolt system as the M91/38 and earlier long rifles. Three mechanical interlocks prevent firing unless the bolt is fully rotated down:

1. Front locking lugs

The firing pin cannot reach the primer unless the bolt lugs are fully engaged in their recesses. If the bolt is even slightly up, the lugs block firing‑pin travel.

2. Firing‑pin cam block

The cam track on the bolt body physically stops the firing pin from moving forward until the bolt handle is fully down. This is a positive mechanical stop, not a soft interference.

3. Cocking piece/sear alignment

The sear only releases the cocking piece when the bolt is in the locked position. If the bolt is not fully closed, the trigger may “click,” but the firing pin cannot travel.

🧪 What happens if you try to fire with the bolt slightly open

On a Carcano (including the M38):

The trigger can release the cocking piece.

The firing pin begins to move forward.

The cam block stops it before it reaches the primer.

Result: a dry click, no ignition.

There is no known case — in military testing, civilian use, or forensic examination — of a Carcano firing out of battery.
---------------------------

It looks like the difference is really does the firing pin release even though you are hearing the click. One AI says it does the other says it does not. The ones I messed with I could not tell. I did notice when the bolt is rotated and the spring is engaged the bolt can no longer move and is tight to the chamber.